Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

Just a quick observation of course is that homosexuality is generally between two consenting and legal adults. It has been determined by the law the age of consenting adults and anything else is not legal.Also you wont observe that homosexual people are mentally damaged because they have sex in a non hetero way. You might see the damage done to them by a harsh culture like ours. Where as it is plain to see the mental and physical damage of a child that has been put through sex way before proper time.The religious can't admit the real reason for their hatred of the "sodomites" is only the aversion to those not like themselves. This should not be a surprise as the Bible is clear on promoting divisiveness among our species.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

it is bigoted garbage to equate homosexuality, which is normal, with paedophilia! There are many heterosexual paedophiles.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument....

So you think an logically fallacious argument can be used as a valid one?

What if I were to state that organized religion is the slippery slope to theocratic rule, and should there fore be banned? Still valid?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument....

So you think an logically fallacious argument can be used as a valid one?

What if I were to state that organized religion is the slippery slope to theocratic rule, and should there fore be banned? Still valid?

sure but can you define "organised religion"...

It is a clear argument as i stated, if it was passed as a sexual orientation, no one by law could discriminate against it....

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument....

So you think an logically fallacious argument can be used as a valid one?

What if I were to state that organized religion is the slippery slope to theocratic rule, and should there fore be banned? Still valid?

sure but can you define "organised religion"...

Pretty much any church. A group of religious whom congregate, tithe, enjoy tax exempt status at their place of worship, things of this nature.

It is a clear argument as i stated, if it was passed as a sexual orientation, no one by law could discriminate against it....

So it would enjoy a legal right that organized religion -already has-.

This of course doesn't address the notion of "consent" in a sexual relationship, it instead just arbitrarily jumps to sexual act.

Because reasons.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

'pedophilia' is already an orientation. Heterosexuality is commonly accepted but rape isn't, against any individual. Why do you suppose that is?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

So you are saying that people have no surviving instinct at all and just listen to what they are told to do? No one in this country that has legalized pedophilia would flee the country or protest violently against the people who legalized it? No one in this country would feel that their childrens' lives are threatened because old pedophiles can scar them for life or even have them killed?

Pedophiliac acts are matters of adults betraying their role models against children, and also most likely scarring them for life. Homosexuality is a matter of moral and preferences.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

Many theists are in the habit of accepting what they are being told by their "religious authorities" without further thought or question. And in fact they believe that to question or doubt such "divine authority", is to commit a "sin" against it. And as a result, they tend to believe that everyone else operates this way, as well. Meaning that they believe that most people will be inclined to believe whatever they're told, without questioning it. And so they assume that any discussion or portrayal of sexuality outside of marriage will lead to an increased belief that sexual behavior outside of marriage is OK. And that any discussion of "deviant" sexuality will lead to an increased belief that deviant sexual behavior is acceptable. In effect, they believe that to suppress and ignore the subject is to erase it from people's minds, and as a consequence, then, from reality.

Many theists cannot give their fellow humans credit for having a mind of their own, and having the ability to discern their own moral and ethical imperatives, because, as "devout" Christians, they have forfeited their own ability to do so. Their fear of the 'slippery slope' is more a projection of themselves, upon others, than is it an actual hazard among the general populace.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

It is possible that it will. What is the nature of sex and marriage? If it is not linked to a purpose then we can repurpose it to whatever the going trend of the day is. Today we find pedophilia abhorrent, a hundred years ago the same would have been said about homosexuality. Once you divorce an action from its purpose then it become infinitely malleable because you've already stated that it doesn't have an inherent purpose.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

'pedophilia' is already an orientation. Heterosexuality is commonly accepted but rape isn't, against any individual. Why do you suppose that is?

is it a classed as a sexual orientation, if it is , by law it will have the same rights as every other sexual orientation, it will be protected from those who disagree with it..

that is the law or do you think some things are more heinous than others and should remain outside of the law???

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

So you are saying that people have no surviving instinct at all and just listen to what they are told to do? No one in this country that has legalized pedophilia would flee the country or protest violently against the people who legalized it? No one in this country would feel that their childrens' lives are threatened because old pedophiles can scar them for life or even have them killed?

Pedophiliac acts are matters of adults betraying their role models against children, and also most likely scarring them for life. Homosexuality is a matter of moral and preferences.

would you have exemptions to law, inequality???

if it is classed, ever, as a sexual orientation it will have the same laws protecting it as any other, however unsavoury that is or may seem, as i said this is the slope of our building....

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument....

So you think an logically fallacious argument can be used as a valid one?

What if I were to state that organized religion is the slippery slope to theocratic rule, and should there fore be banned? Still valid?

sure but can you define "organised religion"...

Pretty much any church. A group of religious whom congregate, tithe, enjoy tax exempt status at their place of worship, things of this nature.

It is a clear argument as i stated, if it was passed as a sexual orientation, no one by law could discriminate against it....

So it would enjoy a legal right that organized religion -already has-.

This of course doesn't address the notion of "consent" in a sexual relationship, it instead just arbitrarily jumps to sexual act.

Because reasons.

define "organised religion",

it would be protected by law, you couldn't call them, say you hate them, not serve them in shops, it they wanted a cake making with a babies face on it you would have to do it or be sued....

Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

'pedophilia' is already an orientation. Heterosexuality is commonly accepted but rape isn't, against any individual. Why do you suppose that is?

is it a classed as a sexual orientation, if it is , by law it will have the same rights as every other sexual orientation, it will be protected from those who disagree with it..

... and? Desiring children for sexual use is not illegal, as creepy as it is. PRACTICING it is.

that is the law or do you think some things are more heinous than others and should remain outside of the law???

I think your understanding of the circumstance as a whole is shoddy at best, which is probably why you think using slippery slope arguments is a valid one.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument....

So you think an logically fallacious argument can be used as a valid one?

What if I were to state that organized religion is the slippery slope to theocratic rule, and should there fore be banned? Still valid?

sure but can you define "organised religion"...

Pretty much any church. A group of religious whom congregate, tithe, enjoy tax exempt status at their place of worship, things of this nature.

It is a clear argument as i stated, if it was passed as a sexual orientation, no one by law could discriminate against it....

So it would enjoy a legal right that organized religion -already has-.

This of course doesn't address the notion of "consent" in a sexual relationship, it instead just arbitrarily jumps to sexual act.

Because reasons.

define "organised religion",

Pretty much any church. A group of religious whom congregate, tithe, enjoy tax exempt status at their place of worship, things of this nature. Second verse, same as the first.

it would be protected by law, you couldn't call them, say you hate them, not serve them in shops, it they wanted a cake making with a babies face on it you would have to do it or be sued....

.. and? What is inherently illegal about a cake with a babies face on it? Is it in some way graphic? Odds are I wouldn't know a pedophile if he/she was serving me lunch.

the equality people want...

the slope people built...

You still haven't made the correlation of how consent plays into any of this are you?

Here, lets see how well you do with analogies.

Rapist is to victimasPedophiliac is to child

Get it yet?

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.http://www.debate.org...

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

It is possible that it will. What is the nature of sex and marriage? If it is not linked to a purpose then we can repurpose it to whatever the going trend of the day is. Today we find pedophilia abhorrent, a hundred years ago the same would have been said about homosexuality. Once you divorce an action from its purpose then it become infinitely malleable because you've already stated that it doesn't have an inherent purpose.

Even if people no longer talks about any purpose of sex and marriage, people still love their children and could even take a bullet for them and would never want them to be molested by old people. Pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different. While proper homosexuality is between consenting adults, pedophiliac acts are about adults betraying their role model roles against children and most likely leads to the children being scarred for life.

If a society has a mentality that one oneself has the final veto over your own body, and that children are fragile and should be treated good, this society will automatically regard pedophilia as the most foulest abuse one could do to a child.

All in all, pedophilia could only be tolerated the day when society starts to treat children like garbage.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

I think the slippery slope, is a valid argument, let's face it we have to accept, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transexuals, so you can see the way things have gone, all we need is for paedophilia to be classified as a sexual orientation and we are there...

A frightening situation just because the world decided we had to accept a perversion...

So you actually believe people would see no problem in letting their little children become molested by old pedophiles? This is what is required for pedophilia to become tolerated, that a majority of people would see no problem with it. Last time I checked, this situation is every parent's worst nightmare.

all it takes is paedophilia to be accepted as a sexual orientation and it will become impossible to speak against them, or do you think it should only work for certain sexual orientations???

that's how steep the slope is...

So you are saying that people have no surviving instinct at all and just listen to what they are told to do? No one in this country that has legalized pedophilia would flee the country or protest violently against the people who legalized it? No one in this country would feel that their childrens' lives are threatened because old pedophiles can scar them for life or even have them killed?

Pedophiliac acts are matters of adults betraying their role models against children, and also most likely scarring them for life. Homosexuality is a matter of moral and preferences.

would you have exemptions to law, inequality???

if it is classed, ever, as a sexual orientation it will have the same laws protecting it as any other, however unsavoury that is or may seem, as i said this is the slope of our building....

But no one will class pedophilia as an accepted orientation, unless a country has a coup d'etat made by escaped mental asylum patients who hate children. And if that would happen, the rest of the population would coup d'etat them back since most parents would take a bullet for their children.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

It is possible that it will. What is the nature of sex and marriage? If it is not linked to a purpose then we can repurpose it to whatever the going trend of the day is. Today we find pedophilia abhorrent, a hundred years ago the same would have been said about homosexuality. Once you divorce an action from its purpose then it become infinitely malleable because you've already stated that it doesn't have an inherent purpose.

Even if people no longer talks about any purpose of sex and marriage, people still love their children and could even take a bullet for them and would never want them to be molested by old people. Pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different. While proper homosexuality is between consenting adults, pedophiliac acts are about adults betraying their role model roles against children and most likely leads to the children being scarred for life.

The members of NAMBLA would disagree. If all sex is, is about desire for sexual gratification, then if both sides are willing there should be no problem with it. All you are doing is putting your own preconceived notions on what sex is - the same as what the religious people you berate do. The difference is that the religious people actually looked to the nature of the act to determine what was or wasn't licit.

Now it can be whatever the culture wants it to be, and if the culture wants pedophilia then it will become not only tolerated, but encouraged as a good thing. We already had the Kinsey report discussing the sexuality of infants. To hold a different view will simply become evidence that you are sexually repressed and that it is normal for young children to desire sexual interaction.

If a society has a mentality that one oneself has the final veto over your own body, and that children are fragile and should be treated good, this society will automatically regard pedophilia as the most foulest abuse one could do to a child.

On the contrary. They will inform parents that they should introduce sexuality to children at a young age and that the only reason they don't interact sexually is because the parents are building medieval taboos in their children's lives. Porn should be introduced to children at a young age so that they are not shocked when they see it, and it will simply become part of their daily lives as children free to explore and express themselves as they see fit.

All in all, pedophilia could only be tolerated the day when society starts to treat children like garbage.

Just like society treats adults like garbage right now.

It will come it just takes time to change societal opinion. Unless society reverts to traditional Christian morality it will take no more than 50-100 years tops.

At 11/28/2016 3:39:28 PM, Jovian wrote:Some conservative theists do in discussions about the acceptance of homosexuality often chime in with the slippery slope argument that a tolerance of homosexuality will automatically lead to that society also will eventually tolerate pedophilia. But how exactly do they believe that would happen? Do these people believe that the majority of all people will start to think "Gays can marry now? Well then, then I should also let old men molest my prepubescent children!"?

And please don't bring up any argument about how liberalism has made the age of consent in country X this and that low. The age of consent is made for underaged teenagers being able to have sex with each other, there are often complimentary laws saying for example that a 15 year old can have sex with a 17 year old but not an 18 year old. Many of these age of consent laws were also established several decades before homosexuality even was declassified as a disease in every country respectively.

It is possible that it will. What is the nature of sex and marriage? If it is not linked to a purpose then we can repurpose it to whatever the going trend of the day is. Today we find pedophilia abhorrent, a hundred years ago the same would have been said about homosexuality. Once you divorce an action from its purpose then it become infinitely malleable because you've already stated that it doesn't have an inherent purpose.

Even if people no longer talks about any purpose of sex and marriage, people still love their children and could even take a bullet for them and would never want them to be molested by old people. Pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different. While proper homosexuality is between consenting adults, pedophiliac acts are about adults betraying their role model roles against children and most likely leads to the children being scarred for life.

The members of NAMBLA would disagree.

Had to google them. This organization

If all sex is, is about desire for sexual gratification, then if both sides are willing there should be no problem with it.

Here you just prove that you have missed the topic of consent. While a child absolutely could consent to have sex, this "consent" it just viewed is as much consent as if the child consented to sign a contract or apply for a bank loan. None that is, since consent in this context is contingent on understanding what someone is consenting to.

This is one of the hindrances for pedophilia to become tolerated, that people regard children as immature and unable to understand many things. Have you heard anyone today saying that the majority 7 year old children are just as intelligent as adults?

All you are doing is putting your own preconceived notions on what sex is - the same as what the religious people you berate do. The difference is that the religious people actually looked to the nature of the act to determine what was or wasn't licit.

Now it can be whatever the culture wants it to be, and if the culture wants pedophilia then it will become not only tolerated, but encouraged as a good thing.

If the population in said country would see no problems at all to have their children molested by old perverts, you would have a point. But this is so far every parent's worst nightmare, and I doubt this mentality would disappear unless something drastic happened to humans' surviving instinct. What could that be, extraterrestrial invasion and brainwashing?

We already had the Kinsey report discussing the sexuality of infants.

Are those who did the report also approving of older people taking advantages of infants, or are these people behind the report only interested in seeing how, where and why sexuality develops in humans and starting with infants?

To hold a different view will simply become evidence that you are sexually repressed and that it is normal for young children to desire sexual interaction.

Did you just libel me as a pedophile or what were you trying to say here?

If a society has a mentality that one oneself has the final veto over your own body, and that children are fragile and should be treated good, this society will automatically regard pedophilia as the most foulest abuse one could do to a child.

On the contrary. They will inform parents that they should introduce sexuality to children at a young age and that the only reason they don't interact sexually is because the parents are building medieval taboos in their children's lives.

I don't see any evidence on that medieval taboo thing happening, and even if this would be the case, do you seriously believe these parents would submit to the message "Let your child have sex with a 60 year old man or else you are a bigot"?

Porn should be introduced to children at a young age so that they are not shocked when they see it, and it will simply become part of their daily lives as children free to explore and express themselves as they see fit.

I am very much against pornographic things being close to children. There are indeed a massive amount of idiots who see no problem in children starting to sing songs with sexual themes they heard on radio (prime example S&M - Rihanna), but even these idiots would start massive riots if someone decided that pedophiliac acts should be legalized.

All in all, pedophilia could only be tolerated the day when society starts to treat children like garbage.

Just like society treats adults like garbage right now.

It will come it just takes time to change societal opinion. Unless society reverts to traditional Christian morality it will take no more than 50-100 years tops.

All these three are leftists who of some weird reason believe early taught sex ed will make the individuals understand about consent. They are just a few and I could with the same strategy tell you about Christian morality with cases of priests molesting altar boys. Neither that would give a fundamental picture of that morality.

Ehm, this booklet is first of all lacking credible sources. The first source didn't work and by the URL I saw it's some kind of minor personal blog, and the second source was to a forum post which didn't have any sources at all. This booklet also claims that sex ed in Germany starts at age of six, when I've heard they start at the age of eleven (not sure).

If all sex is, is about desire for sexual gratification, then if both sides are willing there should be no problem with it.

Here you just prove that you have missed the topic of consent. While a child absolutely could consent to have sex, this "consent" it just viewed is as much consent as if the child consented to sign a contract or apply for a bank loan. None that is, since consent in this context is contingent on understanding what someone is consenting to.

Oh they won't be able to be 'forced', but it will become alright is the child 'wants' to.

This is one of the hindrances for pedophilia to become tolerated, that people regard children as immature and unable to understand many things. Have you heard anyone today saying that the majority 7 year old children are just as intelligent as adults?

Yet you would argue that their bodies are their own. We are already starting to allow gender reassignment to young children.

All you are doing is putting your own preconceived notions on what sex is - the same as what the religious people you berate do. The difference is that the religious people actually looked to the nature of the act to determine what was or wasn't licit.

Now it can be whatever the culture wants it to be, and if the culture wants pedophilia then it will become not only tolerated, but encouraged as a good thing.

If the population in said country would see no problems at all to have their children molested by old perverts, you would have a point. But this is so far every parent's worst nightmare, and I doubt this mentality would disappear unless something drastic happened to humans' surviving instinct. What could that be, extraterrestrial invasion and brainwashing?

See the links I posted above. Kids in preschool are starting to act out porn with each other. Who's to say they might not want to act it out with adults?

We already had the Kinsey report discussing the sexuality of infants.

Are those who did the report also approving of older people taking advantages of infants, or are these people behind the report only interested in seeing how, where and why sexuality develops in humans and starting with infants?

They masturbated infants to see their sexual responses and how long it took them to orgasm. This was the same report that began to make homosexuality acceptable.

To hold a different view will simply become evidence that you are sexually repressed and that it is normal for young children to desire sexual interaction.

Did you just libel me as a pedophile or what were you trying to say here?

No what I'm saying is that when society shifts you will be viewed by society as you view my sexual ethics. You will be viewed as a sexually repressed dinosaur.

On the contrary. They will inform parents that they should introduce sexuality to children at a young age and that the only reason they don't interact sexually is because the parents are building medieval taboos in their children's lives.

I don't see any evidence on that medieval taboo thing happening, and even if this would be the case, do you seriously believe these parents would submit to the message "Let your child have sex with a 60 year old man or else you are a bigot"?

Lol. It never happens that overtly. It happens in increments. It starts with exposing kids at younger ages to sex and encouraging masturbation. Then it goes to touching other young children as sex play. The adult thing doesn't come for a few decades after those kids have become adults and they no longer know what an innocent childhood is like anymore.

Porn should be introduced to children at a young age so that they are not shocked when they see it, and it will simply become part of their daily lives as children free to explore and express themselves as they see fit.

I am very much against pornographic things being close to children. There are indeed a massive amount of idiots who see no problem in children starting to sing songs with sexual themes they heard on radio (prime example S&M - Rihanna), but even these idiots would start massive riots if someone decided that pedophiliac acts should be legalized.

Stage 1. People said the same thing about homosexuality. It moves in increments and through 'science'. Because people want to listen to what is backed by 'science' right?

All these three are leftists who of some weird reason believe early taught sex ed will make the individuals understand about consent. They are just a few and I could with the same strategy tell you about Christian morality with cases of priests molesting altar boys. Neither that would give a fundamental picture of that morality.

Sure can you show me where the Church teaches that priests should molest altar boys?

And then some of these people make it into government and introduce stuff into the sex education cirriculum:

Ehm, this booklet is first of all lacking credible sources. The first source didn't work and by the URL I saw it's some kind of minor personal blog, and the second source was to a forum post which didn't have any sources at all. This booklet also claims that sex ed in Germany starts at age of six, when I've heard they start at the age of eleven (not sure).

All these three are leftists who of some weird reason believe early taught sex ed will make the individuals understand about consent. They are just a few and I could with the same strategy tell you about Christian morality with cases of priests molesting altar boys. Neither that would give a fundamental picture of that morality.

Ehm, this booklet is first of all lacking credible sources. The first source didn't work and by the URL I saw it's some kind of minor personal blog, and the second source was to a forum post which didn't have any sources at all. This booklet also claims that sex ed in Germany starts at age of six, when I've heard they start at the age of eleven (not sure).

All these three are leftists who of some weird reason believe early taught sex ed will make the individuals understand about consent. They are just a few and I could with the same strategy tell you about Christian morality with cases of priests molesting altar boys. Neither that would give a fundamental picture of that morality.

Sure can you show me where the Church teaches that priests should molest altar boys?

Nowhere. Can you show me where a 90% majority in any Western government approve of 60 year olds having sex with 8 year olds?

And then some of these people make it into government and introduce stuff into the sex education cirriculum:

There are people of many obscure agendas who are rising to high posts. What exactly did he or the current Ontario Parliament change in the curriculum? Whatever it was, I'm quite sure "teaching children they should accept molestation by older people" wasn't included.

Ehm, this booklet is first of all lacking credible sources. The first source didn't work and by the URL I saw it's some kind of minor personal blog, and the second source was to a forum post which didn't have any sources at all. This booklet also claims that sex ed in Germany starts at age of six, when I've heard they start at the age of eleven (not sure).

Alright. But if you read closer, you will be relieved over the fact that this was an indeed very isolated happening.

1. It happened on only one school in Germany.2. This school was located in Kreuzberg, a Berlin district with a long history of counterculture.3. "The publisher, Loewe Verlag, decided to discontinue the book after parents complained about the racy content to the Berlin Senate, The Telegraph reported.". If even a counterculture district as Kreuzberg objected to this event, then I could tell you that there is no worries at all, lol.